It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Since Nov. 2015, I have insistingly been asked (or shall we say, "challenged") via private e-mail by one John Roth to write an article for him - so as to refute an article published on the "Daily Kos" which, according to John, refutes the following statement of mine (published in my Tour Guide to the September Clues research ) :

simonshack wrote:"The master plan of 9/11 was to demolish the redundant, asbestos-filled WTC complex in Lower Manhattan - 9 buildings in all. The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions - not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme - just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda."

That 'sarcastic' Daily Kos article (by one Katherine Smith) cited by John is titled "911 Truthers are Dummies" - and states the following :

Katherine Smith wrote:The Single Stupidest Insurance Fraud In History

Silverstein's best-case scenario was an insurance payout of $6.8 billion for the twin towers. Putting aside that the insurance companies refused to pay and settled for $4.55 billion and that he had a mortgage on the twin towers, the $10-12 billion to rebuild the towers would leave him with at least $4 billion deficit. And contrary to what you heard, the twin towers were quite profitable and had fairly high occupancy rates.

To recap, Larry Silverstein wanted the moneymaking towers destroyed so he could collect a net loss from insurance funds, not to mention the loss of rental income during the 10+ years it will take to re-build the Freedom Tower.

In other words, that article suggests that Larry Silverstein couldn't possibly be a willing participant in the Grand 9/11 Hoax - since he would have lost money in the process. The article also states most assuredly that "the twin towers were quite profitable and had fairly high occupancy rates" (yet fails to provide any sources to that claim). So let us now see what one expert biographer of the WTC towers ( Eric Darton) wrote in his book titled "Divided we Stand" :

Eric Darton published in 1999 the most exhaustive / comprehensive existing 'biography' of the WTC twin towers. Please note that Darton is certainly no 'conspiracy theorist' - as his book only traces the towers' history from their birth up to 1999. However, it turns out to provide invaluable clues as to how the towers' tenants might have been 'controlled' - so to speak - after the first 1993 "Al-Qaeda" bombing. 'Divided We Stand' is also a treasure trove for anyone interested in the wheelings and dealings that - historically - have characterized these most cumbersome, asbestos-laced and crappy / strongly disliked buildings.

I have selected a few interesting, short extracts of "Divided We Stand" (but please read his book to understand just what a decaying / decrepit estate behemoth the twin towers were known to be). Here they are :

1- THE TOWERS WERE A SHAMBLES FROM THE WORD GO - (and a decrepit behemoth by the late 1990's):"Pacing out the periphery of the trade towers in the late 1990s, one navigated a cracked badlands of sidewalk crudely patched with mismatching cement. The weathered, gray (originally white) Italian marble paving on the plaza was a spiderweb of cracks, a condition that undermined the addition of benches and flowerbeds and the tinkling medley of new-age harmonics emanating from a score of tiny speakers mounted beneath Yamasaki's arcades. Construction equipment and barricades around the site appeared to have been deployed and then abandoned by a retreating army."

In 1985, when New York State moved most of its offices out, Dean Witter consolidated its operations in twenty-four floors of Tower 2 under a twenty-year lease. Visiting the brokerage and investment firm's offices and cafeterias, one invariably found them spotlessly maintained. But on adjacent floors, particularly those with multiple tenants, the paint was dingy, the carpets were stained, fixtures remained broken, and burned-out fluorescent lights went unreplaced, as did discolored ceiling tiles. And the listing of a company on the directory did not reliably indicate that a company was still there."

2- FOLLOWING THE 1993 BOMBING, 50,000 workers were displaced and 350 tenants were RELOCATED OUTSIDE THE WTC. "The February 1993 blast in the basement of the World Trade Center killed 6 people, injured 1,000 others, displaced 50,000 workers, and threw 900 Vista Hotel and Windows on the World employees out of work, but it also provided a modest boost for the regional economy. This, at any rate, was the conclusion the Port Authority came to in an April 1993 report released six weeks after the bombing. (...) For the agency, this silver lining was due in part to the ease with which the 350 bombed-out trade center tenants could be moved into abundant vacant office space nearby."

3- AT THE END OF THE 90'S HUGE QUANTITIES OF OFFICE SPACE WERE ANNOUNCED RENTED - BY THE PRESS [i]"The Port Authority closed out the 1990s with a stream of press releases announcing the rental of unimaginably huge quantities of trade center office space to "cutting-edge" firms like Sun Microsystems. Yet around the complex a million square feet stood empty, and the buildings originally intended as great catalyzing chambers of world trade were, by degrees, transforming into a kind of disjunctive real estate layer-cake. One story above the carpeted, wood-paneled offices of a Japanese securities firm, a group of artists filled bare walls with boldly colored images and hung sculptures from the exposed ceiling girders of a vast echoing cavern. As part of a Lower Manhattan Cultural Council program that turned some of the vacant space in the towers over to artists rent-free, 40,000 square feet of concrete floor lay paint-spattered and strewn with the raw materials of a creative urge that has never been easily reconciled with the imperatives of a bottom line. "

1: "A SHAMBLES FROM THE WORD GO" - i.e., not at all profitable - and a real-estate developer's / owner's nightmare.

2: "TOTALLY EVACUATED OF ALL THEIR TENANTS AND 50.000 OFFICE WORKERS IN 1993" - i.e. the WTC towers were totally vacated after the first, reported 1993 'Al-Quaeda terror attack'. We learn that "350 bombed-out trade center tenants were moved into abundant vacant office space nearby."

3: AT THE END OF THE 90'S HUGE QUANTITIES OF OFFICE SPACE WEREANNOUNCED RENTED by the press. Well, we'd have to trust the press in order to believe that "unimaginably huge quantities of trade center office space were rented to "cutting-edge" firms such as Sun Microsystems" - as claimed. Meanwhile, Eric Darton describes the WTC as a "vast echoing cavern" populated by a bunch of (non-paying / rent-free) squatting artists!

Are there any official, verifiable records of these new tenants purportedly once again filling up the WTC towers - following the total 1993 evacuation?

That is the question.

But hey, maybe we should set up a fundraiser to help poor / financially-beleaguered Larry Silverstein make his ends meet?

**************

And from a more recent (May 2014) article - lamenting the low demand for leases of the new, $3.9 billion "One World Trade Center" :

During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of the 1987 stock market crash, which led to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became Governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs, including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding.[16]

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[17] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[18] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[19] The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.[

So Silverstein put up $14 mil. Can Smithy (Katherine) name the Bank (banks) who loaned the remainder of the $4billion for Larry's purchase, knowing that Larry needed twice the purchase price to fund the renovations to, make the White Elephant economically viable.(assuming that the bank/ banks were unaware that the structures were to be destroyed)

I know this probably doesn't help in this contingency, and maybe this is a semantic problem more than a substantial one: but somehow I wonder on the nature of this Silverstein guy, whether he really is a corrupted real-estate mogul who took part in on the 9/11 scam (this seems to be after all the way we discuss him), or rather just another front, an agent/actor whose company and identity has been completely fabricated and designed to fit into this story. Like "Howard Lutnick" the actor/"CEO" of Cantor and so many others... Because I don't think that whatever is behind 9/11 would just let this guy and his company handle so much money and wield so much decision-making power in this matter.

So that's pretty rich. Cantor Fitzgerald allegedly sued American Airlines because their plane crashed into Cantor's offices. American Airlines should now sue Silverstein because the towers were on the way of the plane.

I am not even sure this money is really changing hands, or if this are all just a PR stunts to yet again lend credibility to the fanciful story of the planes and the dead traders.

We are also informed that "Cantor Fitzgerald, meanwhile, has risen dramatically from a low of about 150 employees in the months after the attacks. It now has 3,200 employees in New York and about 8,000 worldwide, including the employees of a spinoff, BGC Partners." Hard to say if any of this is true, whether this BGC company is the actual real company which pretends to have spawned from the fake one, or whatever degrees of truth are in the middle. Sure fact is that these trading/brokerage organizations are nothing more than glorified criminal cartels run by sociopaths and psychopaths:

Also in May 2012 a story was published by the New York Daily News under the headline 'Cantor Fitzgerald VP was boss from hell, secretary says in suit' which reported on a lawsuit brought against the company by former employee Crystal Mitchell. Mitchell worked as an executive assistant to Michael Lampert at BGC USA, an affiliate of Cantor Fitzgerald, in March 2011. According to the suit filed by her lawyer David Harrison, her boss once threw a cup of tea at her because she hadn't removed the teabag. "The boiling hot liquid spilled on [Mitchell], burning her stomach and upper leg, and staining her clothes.” the suit said, adding that “Almost daily, Lampert humiliated and degraded Mitchell, yelling at her as if she was inferior and calling her: ‘stupid,’ ‘moron,’ ‘the dumbest person I ever met,’ ‘incompetent,’ and ‘idiot,’ ”. Elsewhere in the discrimination suit, she says she complained about the treatment to human resource managers — but her pleas for help were ignored.

nonhocapito wrote:I know this probably doesn't help in this contingency, and maybe this is a semantic problem more than a substantial one: but somehow I wonder on the nature of this Silverstein guy, whether he really is a corrupted real-estate mogul who took part in on the 9/11 scam (this seems to be after all the way we discuss him), or rather just another front, an agent/actor whose company and identity has been completely fabricated and designed to fit into this story. Like "Howard Lutnick" the actor/"CEO" of Cantor and so many others... Because I don't think that whatever is behind 9/11 would just let this guy and his company handle so much money and wield so much decision-making power in this matter.

Considering that Larry Silverstein has been a constant prop up dummy/piñata for the likes of Alex Jones, Loose Change etc. your thought process seems right on the money (pun partially intended) to me. All one has to do is make one or two faulty assumptions and off they go into the SILVER(stein) mine (rabbit hole) to never find a damn thing.

Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on July 3rd, 2016, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here Silverstein states that he had plans for a new WTC7 in April 2000, "...and construction began shortly thereafter, in 2002". Unless we want to justify it all as simple, cocky arrogance, outrageous statements like these, on top of the notorious "pull it" quote, are what somehow show him as a character designed to be used as the "evil jew" of the 9/11 "inside job": but by no means an actual Real Estate Mogul of New York City.

nonhocapito wrote:Here Silverstein states that he had plans for a new WTC7 in April 2000.

Some of the comments to that video are interesting:

Omg! Check this out. I just verified it. The asbesto-infected WTC towers were signed over to Silverstein on April 26, 2001 by the Port Authority. The new building was designed by Silverstein BEFORE he got the lease. First time the towers were ever sold to a private owner and HE demanded that THEY buy the insurance policy BEFORE he took possession.

The architects who designed this new WTC7 building would have known that they were designing for a plot that already had a perfectly good building on it.

If Larry says that the antenna had anything to do with the collapse of WTC7 then that makes him a conspiracy theorist. The official (bullcrap) version of 9/11 says WTC7 fell due to thermal expansion of a single beam. Freedom of Information requests got the blueprints for WTC7 and the beams had restraining studs to prevent said expansion (hat tip to Ben Swann for reporting this)﻿

Ok, so Larry is quite specific, he doesn't just say a year, he says a month AND a year. But even if we go with the argument that it was just a slip of the tongue, then what did he actually mean to say? April 2001? If so, then that's still obviously problematic because that was before 9/11 too! So did he mean to say April 2002? Well, even Wikipedia states that they began construction of WTC 7 in May of 2002, so how can you have the first design meeting in April 2002, and then start the actual construction in May 2002?. Now, when you also add into the equation his "pull it" quote, which he later changed to that bullshit about pulling "IT" (IT! A GROUP of firefighters!) out of the building. AND Tony Szamboti's remembrance that Larry said WTC 7 was a controlled demolition for safety purposes on the the 'History's Business' show on The History Channel in 2004. Tony says he would swear in a court of law that Larry said this, and when he requested a copy of this programme from the History Channel, he was told that it wasn't for release to the public! And, according to Tony Szamboti, someone got in touch with the producer of "History's Business" to ask about this show, and they were told not to keep asking about this programme unless they did it via an attorney! Nope! Its just not looking good for Larry!﻿

It is not a Jewish problem, but a money problem, money has no nationalities, no borders, just controllers, just wait until it is electronic and the real stealing of what is basically your labour begins.﻿

How interesting that they had the first design meeting for a new WTC-7 in April of 2000. I wonder if they discussed how they were going to remove the existing WTC-7. If this were not true, how is it possible that they could have had complete plans drawn up AND approved for a new state-of-the-art 52-story skyscraper in just 7 months. The time between 9/11 and when construction began on the new WTC-7, in May of 2002. Im no expert in these matters, but perhaps there are some out there that would like to weigh in on this.﻿

Larry Silverstein is likely Jerry Stiller the actor who has to continue his gig or else. Just like the Obamas and Janet Napolitano. Hired to deceive from the truth in order to manipulate the money. Anyone want to help me save the former US from tyranny?﻿

edit to add:

Some of the issues above may be worthwhile looking into, after separating the wheat from the chaff.

- The engineering company that designed the new WTC. Based on the informed dates, they (and Silverstein Properties) cannot deny foreknowledge of the demolition in September 2001 and could in theory be questioned about it in a court of law.- Blueprints of WTC 7 allegedly obtained through a FOIA request.- The story about Tony Szamboti and the 2004 episode of History's Business on the History Channel in which Silverstein is supposed to have clearly affirmed WTC 7 was "a controlled demolition for safety purposes". Chances are slim, but a VHS tape may exist somewhere.

Also, I think of it as a promising development that more and more people are willing to consider the possibility that famous entrepreneurs and statesmen are not merely fronts for behind-the-scenes powerful groups, but plain actors.

All of the above except one are videos which single out Silverstein as a criminal involved in making 9/11 happen and profiting for it. You've got to wonder if this isn't just an agent acting as a lightning rod, attracting the energy and attention of the "conspiracy theorists".

Anyway here's the full speech I was looking for, from which the above quote is taken:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUvLCzk7nh4

...recommended if you suffer from lack of sleep. I admit I skipped through it because it is too boring. Yet, At around the 50 minute mark the fairytale of 9/11 is told, so maybe it can make for a useful listening, perhaps while ironing or playing chess.

Simon,You have several times referred to "nine buildings" demolished in connection with 9/11 (e.g., viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477, item 3), but I am a little fuzzy on the details of the two buildings that were destroyed in addition to WTC 1-7, the dates of their demolition, their relation to the WTC complex and ownership structure, and the official reason given for their removal. I can´t seem to locate this information on the forum.

Flabbergasted » September 13th, 2017, 7:18 pm wrote:Simon,You have several times referred to "nine buildings" demolished in connection with 9/11 (e.g., http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477, item 3), but I am a little fuzzy on the details of the two buildings that were destroyed in addition to WTC 1-7, the dates of their demolition, their relation to the WTC complex and ownership structure, and the official reason given for their removal. I can´t seem to locate this information on the forum.

Dear Flabbergasted,

Here's from Wickedpedia:

"Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC), and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished some years later, starting in 2007. The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

So let's see, if my maths are right - the number of buildings ultimately wiped off the NY map would add up to: